Yup, it's always funny when people slight Lidstrom and then praise Harvey at the same time. They sound like they were extremely similar and had extremely similar career paths, only Lidstrom played in a much more advanced and fully integrated league.
I'm still not sure how to place Harvey and Lidstrom, so I agree with the general idea here. But, I'm not sure they had similar career paths at all.
Why no love for Pierre Pilote who played for chicago in the 60's he won 3 norris trophy's was captain.Though they only won a single cup pierre deserves a bit more credit
Why no love for Pierre Pilote who played for chicago in the 60's he won 3 norris trophy's was captain.Though they only won a single cup pierre deserves a bit more credit
He was ranked 14th all-time and close behind 12th. Would you rank him even higher than that?
I'm fairly new to the site so some where at that range is reasonable but many believe he was better than red kelly and for his size a tough person who could fight.
You realise that playing in a "much more advanced" league makes defense easier to play, not harder right?
Harvey stood out defensively without the advanced systems or getting any where near the kind of consistent defensive help that Lidstrom had.
Really? Playing hockey in a league where the pace is much faster and much more precision is required is easier? It's not just the equipment and strategies that became more advanced, EVERYTHING became more advanced since Harvey's time and the talent pool exploded as well.
Harvey and Lidstrom would be considered equals had they accomplished what they did in the same era. The fact that Lidstrom accomplished what he did in this era while Harvey's accomplishments are from an all-Canadian NHL in the 50's and 60's is what really separates the two. No offense to Doug Harvey or what he did in his time but they are simply not the same.
Let's deal with reality and what is really a bigger feat.
Really? Playing hockey in a league where the pace is much faster and much more precision is required is easier? It's not just the equipment and strategies that became more advanced, EVERYTHING became more advanced since Harvey's time and the talent pool exploded as well.
Harvey and Lidstrom would be considered equals had they accomplished what they did in the same era. The fact that Lidstrom accomplished what he did in this era while Harvey's accomplishments are from an all-Canadian NHL in the 50's and 60's is what really separates the two. No offense to Doug Harvey or what he did in his time but they are simply not the same.
Let's deal with reality and what is really a bigger feat.
Have you read the post about how dominant and conclusive Harvey’s Norris wins were compared to Lidstrom?
Have you read the post about how dominant and conclusive Harvey’s Norris wins were compared to Lidstrom?
People talk about the weak competition that Lidstrom had, it's not like Harvey was playing in the golden era of Dmen either.
there is too much focus on just the Dmen though we have to talk about how the actual game play was as well and opposition attacks, forchecking pressure on Dmen ect...
DaninCanada makes a good point in that Lidstrom played in a fully integrated league which can get under valued at times in the history section.
Maybe some more time passing will give more perspective on this.
You realise that playing in a "much more advanced" league makes defense easier to play, not harder right?
Please elaborate, just because the general play was more defensive it doesn't make it easy to play defense.
Quote:
Harvey stood out defensively without the advanced systems or getting any where near the kind of consistent defensive help that Lidstrom had.
Didn't those Habs teams have alot of talent? Not sure what you are getting at here either.
Quote:
This is the same reason why I consider Langway's play and accomplishments defensively to be more impressive than Lidstrom's.
Not even sure where to start here. Lidstrom's prime defensive play is longer than Langways entire career.
Quote:
Harvey and Lid's offense is pretty similar but the biggest difference between them was Harvey's puck possession skills and how he, like Bourque, controlled the entire ice not just 60'-90' like Lidstrom.
Man you almost made a post without mentioning Ray but there it is last sentence. Harvey played in a different era and had a different style than Lidstrom as well.
You can argue that Lidstrom had a greater impact on the game though.
Have you read the post about how dominant and conclusive Harvey’s Norris wins were compared to Lidstrom?
They'd better be cause Harvey was arguably dealing with 1/5 the talent pool Lidstrom faced. That would affect his competition, whether it be the best player in league all the way to the worst.
They'd better be cause Harvey was arguably dealing with 1/5 the talent pool Lidstrom faced. That would affect his competition, whether it be the best player in league all the way to the worst.
so the bottom 4/5 of the league who never get even a thought of a norris vote somehow made it harder on Lidstrom?
so the bottom 4/5 of the league who never get even a thought of a norris vote somehow made it harder on Lidstrom?
If the talent pool is 5 times larger then hypothetically you should have 5 times more elite defenseman as well. It's not an exact science but it's fairly logical from what we know about mankind.
If Harvey separated himself from 100,000 other defenseman in the world and Lidstrom separated himself from 500,000 other defenseman in the world then who overcame greater odds and who accomplished a greater feat?
If Harvey separated himself from 100,000 other defenseman in the world and Lidstrom separated himself from 500,000 other defenseman in the world then who overcame greater odds and who accomplished a greater feat?
The point in question is the degree of separation.
If the talent pool is 5 times larger then hypothetically you should have 5 times more elite defenseman as well. It's not an exact science but it's fairly logical from what we know about mankind.
If Harvey separated himself from 100,000 other defenseman in the world and Lidstrom separated himself from 500,000 other defenseman in the world then who overcame greater odds and who accomplished a greater feat?
So where's the evidence that the talent pool is 5 times larger now?
plus, the number of defensemen with a serious shot at the Norris has not gotten any larger over time.
Depending on how much you think the European influx added to the talent pool, the number of defensemen with a serious shot at the Norris probably has increased. But nowhere near 5 times.
So where's the evidence that the talent pool is 5 times larger now?
Where's the evidence that it's not?
There are no numbers available to prove this but people in this section have been hiding behind that for far too long IMO. It's just so blatantly obvious that hockey has grown immensely as a sport since the O6.
You can't tell me with a straight face that Harvey faced the same amount of talent as Lidstrom did in order to be considered the best dman in the world during their respective reigns. It's simply not close.
Actually, it's not even worth my time to continue here... It's akin to debating with people about the colour of the sky.
So you make a statement of fact (the NHL talent pool is 5 times larger now) and then tell us we have to prove you wrong? That's not how proof works.
But I do think there is good reason to think that the Canadian talent pool hasn't changed much since the O6 (it's been provided in this thread multiple times already; feel free to disagree). And the influx of Europeans and Americans maybe doubled the talent pool, not even close to a factor of 5.
Quote:
There are no numbers available to prove this but people in this section have been hiding behind that for far too long IMO. It's just so blatantly obvious that hockey has grown immensely as a sport since the O6.
You can't tell me with a straight face that Harvey faced the same amount of talent as Lidstrom did in order to be considered the best dman in the world during their respective reigns. It's simply not close.
Just because the talent pool may have doubled, doesn't mean the guys at the top are twice as good. Elite talent are outliers who are randomly distributed. More talent makes them more likely to appear, but doesn't make them better. And I think our list reflects that. Of the top 5, you have 2 guys appearing in the 30 years since Orr. And 2 guys appearing in all of hockey history before Orr (50 years since the start of the NHL, about 70 years since children started growing up playing competitive hockey)
Quote:
Actually, it's not even worth my time to continue here... It's akin to debating with people about the colour of the sky.
You can't tell me with a straight face that Harvey faced the same amount of talent as Lidstrom did in order to be considered the best dman in the world during their respective reigns. It's simply not close.
Another myth on this web site is that there are more youth playing hockey more than ever?Russia Canada czech slovakia less players are playing now than ever.In the 50-70's in canada there were line ups to join minor hockey now they are struggling
Personally I am not sure as to how much the talent pool has grown, but I'd say that it definatly has, besides the players coming out of Europe, my guess is that scouting has improved, facilities have improved and i would guess that hockey as a sport has gained public interest since O6. This is speculative at best, but i wont be guessing as to how much more talent is available these days. However, saying that the talent pool isn't deeper these days is quite ignorant (no offence).
plus, the number of defensemen with a serious shot at the Norris has not gotten any larger over time.
How is that? Actually this is affected by the number of teams. When you had 6 teams, you had a lot less chances to shine. Now, with 30 teams a talented kid can play top minutes from the start and develop differently.
Imagine if Drew Doughty was drafted by Detroit. You think he's a Norris finalist in his sophomore year?
How is that? Actually this is affected by the number of teams. When you had 6 teams, you had a lot less chances to shine. Now, with 30 teams a talented kid can play top minutes from the start and develop differently.
Imagine if Drew Doughty was drafted by Detroit. You think he's a Norris finalist in his sophomore year?
It's definitely true that it usually took longer for O6 players to get a shot in the NHL. Very few 18, 19, and 20 year olds got a shot at the NHL at the time. But I don't see a reason why the best defensemen wouldn't have gotten a shot eventually and usually sooner, rather than later.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 11-15-2012 at 11:56 AM.
It's definitely true that it usually took longer for O6 players to get a shot in the NHL. Very few 18, 19, and 20 year olds got a shot at the NHL at the time. But I don't see a reason why the best defensemen wouldn't have gotten a shot eventually and usually sooner, rather than later.
I believe many of you underestimate plain luck in players development. There are right environments and simply bad environments for development. There is a reason that teams like Columbus and NY Islanders can barely develop NHL talent despite drafting high every single year. Is it all about bad scouting? I really doubt. God knows how would some of those prospects do if drafted by a different team.
Or lets take Detroit. You know why Pavel Datsyuk was drafted? Hakan Andresson was scouting Dmitry Kalinin and simply noticed one skinny but skilled player on opposing team. I think he then saw Datsyuk two more times. Then Datsyuk gets drafted, comes over and is mentored by Igor Larionov. Datsyuk probably never gets drafted if not luck. How he would do on another team without great mentors? We never know that, but thanks to random stuff like this Pavel Datsyuk is one of the best two-way forwards of his generation and probably ends up in the Hall Of Fame.
Heck... even Lidstrom got drafted because someone told Detroit scout that there is dman on a local team, who almost never gets beaten in practice. That's how Lidstrom was discovered.
So all this "elite talent will shine no matter what" is very debatable. Being in the right place, at the right time can matter more than some of you suspect. Getting drafted by the right team, having good mentors, playing under right coach. Players can't control many things. You can have talent, you might be hardworking, but you end up in the organization that rushes you and you never reach your full potential. Or you might end up on a stacked team and play in limited role for the first 5 years of your career and still not reach your full potential. Or... you do. There are a lot of variables that players don't control.
But in the end... what matters is that having more teams gives opportunities to more players. And saying otherwise simply ignores the reality. Some of these players use the opportunity to the fullest. Sedins and Perry don't get a sniff of all that hardware playing for Pittsburgh for example. Tim Thomas never makes the NHL with 6 teams in it, ect.
Tim Thomas never makes the NHL with 6 teams in it, ect.
I think goalies are different because each team only used one starter. Each team in the O6 had 4 regular defensemen and a substitute, so there was more room for turnover.
Sure there are notable exceptions (Martin St Louis), but they are notable because they are exceptions.
